This link redirects and I couldn't find the original text file by googling, but the full stoplist is available on his website here http://www.matthewjockers.net/macroanalysisbook/expanded-stopwords-list/ I just copied and pasted into my text editor and saved as a .txt file

I think this link is broken

I find this paradox interesting - that an abundance of data could actually ultimately result in less accurate or meaningful information.

This section is a nice summary of a lot of the issues that we've discussed over the past couple weeks, particularly in module 2 and 3

This reminds me of the Coding History podcast from last week and Ian Milligan's remarks on Geocities. Today's google search result is tomorrow's history!

Thinking about the consequences of technology that produces "errorful" work is definitely interesting, but I think it's important to keep in mind that tech which produces seemingly errorless work should be scrutinized just as much. Maybe I'm being too cynical, but if I got a perfect piece of OCR I think I'd wonder what was left out in the process of making it so clear.

It's interesting to think of the digital object itself as an artifact, rather than just a copy

There seems to be a line in the sand drawn here between traditional academic audiences and more digitally-savvy audiences. I wonder if the trouble with reconciling these two groups has anything to do with the challenges of introducing complex methodological techniques to scholars who might be intimidated or feel entrenched in their own methods

I wonder if this bias has anything to do with the fact that digital labour often seems invisible from the outside. I imagine most historians can appreciate the work that goes into physical searches for data and transcribing sources, but in a culture that's conditioned to think of 'digital' as synonymous with 'instantaneous' (thinking of google search results for instance, or just search functions in general) maybe it's harder to recognize the amount of work that goes into developing and executing these methods, and therefore producing academic work that follows these techniques appears less prestigious

This is one of the things I find most exciting about digital humanities work. The 'scholarship tent' is now starting to include many different disciplines, and thinking about how the tools that digital humanities scholars use could be applied to other fields is really exciting.

It's pretty neat to consider how quickly these new research methods have come into use

Hmm, but at what cost? Google has ease-of-use down pat, but I have to wonder what kind of concessions you make as a user (without necessarily realizing) in terms of the kind of information you're receiving.

This seems like a double-edged sword to me - on the one hand, obviously there's a financial incentive to create more and more journals that universities and libraries will then be obliged to buy according to this system, but on the other hand, the creation of more journals means more opportunity for academics to get published...which I guess leads to a whole other conversation about the premium placed on academic publishing as a form of accreditation.

I have to say, seeing this comment is one of the most interesting parts of this article for me! There really seems to be a contrast here between what Michelle Moravac suggests regarding writing in public as a means of countering isolation in academic writing and Sheila Brennan's experience of increased isolation from the academic community as a result of creating work publicly.

This is a bit awkwardly worded. It took me a second to understand what the instruction was.

Interestingly, I think there's already an amateur community of family historians who do a great job with this kind of cooperation. I know from my dad's 10+ year quest to dig up our family's history that collaboration between individuals in the online genealogy community is really common. These communities share all kinds of data, and not all of it comes from centralized sources like national archives, but also the local level. From what I've observed, there's a kind of reciprocity that exists in these communities. Interesting to consider whether how to pressure to publish original research in academic may contribute to a kind of hoarding of information on the part of professional researchers.

I definitely understand why a researcher would feel this way, but to be fair, if your means of collecting data is scanning old documents it strikes me that the data you collect is already less "yours" than if it came from an experiment or from your own field research. And really, to expand on that further, does any data concerning human participants/subjects ever really belong wholly to the researcher? Surely such data belongs more so to the people being studied (even if they're long dead) than the researcher.

As an Anthropology student, this characterization of the macroscope made me think of the kind of work that socio-cultural anthropology attempts to do - take the chaos of the social world and unveil meaning from what, to the naked or untrained, eye might otherwise seem to lack any larger significance.

This is a really cool tool. :)